A New Jersey jury in Atlantic County awarded our client Linda Gross $3.35 million in compensatory damages plus $7.76 million in punitive damages, for a total verdict of $11.1 millilon, in the first trial against Johnson & Johnson subsidary Ethicon involving the Gynecare Prolift mesh device. The jury found that J&J was guilty of fraudulently misrepresenting its mesh product used to repair our client’s pelvic organ prolapse and failing to adequately warn her surgeon who implanted the product.

This pelvic mesh lawsuit is the first of 1,800 mesh cases to go to trial over whether J&J’s Ethicon unit adequately warned of the risks associated with its mesh implant device.

The $3.35 million compensatory award includes $1.1 million for pain and suffering, $1 million for future medical treatments, $680,000 in past and future lost wages, $385,000 in past medical treatments and $185,000 for the pain and suffering of Gross’s husband.

In addition to the compensatory damages, the jury imposed $7.76 million in punitive damages against J&J. In his closing statement during the punitive damage phase, partner Adam Slater (pictured above right) implored the jury to send a message to J&J:

“Tell them through your verdict, don’t do this again, change your way of business,” Slater said in an opening statement today of the punitive phase of a trial that began Jan. 10. “You’ve already found they knew what they were saying was untrue. When you make a punitive damage award and you want to deter them, you take into account how much money they have.”

The jury agreed, awarding $7.76 million in punitive damages against J&J.

“Linda Gross cannot turn back the clock and make her misery and pain disappear,” her lead attorney, Adam Slater said in a statement. “But she and countless victims like her can take some comfort in knowing that a jury … decided … that the corporation responsible for their suffering should be severely punished financially.”

Adam Slater presenting closing argument to the jury.

* Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. Because every case is different, the descriptions of awards and cases previously handled are not meant to be a guarantee of success.

Learn More

Advertising Disclaimer // This web site constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If you believe this web site is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. For the comparison standards employed by the various lawyer rating companies, please visit superlawyers.com, bestlawyers.com, milliondollaradvocatesforum.com, lawdragon.com, and tenleaders.com.